When do these fucking dolts have time to worry about the business of the state when they are preoccupied with gay issues of their own making?

Now, now, you're forgetting the rule of thumb RJ Republicans use: because not EVERY Republican would support this bill, you can't criticize ANY Republican lawmakers for their proposing and possibly passing it. Nor criticize them for similar bigoted bills that Republican lawmakers have been passing all across the country at State level.

Nor criticize ANY voters who vote these anti-gay lawmakers into office, because not ALL Republicans vote for them. Since that would be making generalizations. Got it?

When do these fucking dolts have time to worry about the business of the state when they are preoccupied with gay issues of their own making?

Now, now, you're forgetting the rule of thumb RJ Republicans use: because not EVERY Republican would support this bill, you can't criticize ANY Republican lawmakers for their proposing and possibly passing it. Nor criticize them for similar bigoted bills that Republican lawmakers have been passing all across the country at State level.

Nor criticize ANY voters who vote these anti-gay lawmakers into office, because not ALL Republicans vote for them. Because that would be making generalizations. Got it?

WHAT????.....so, you mean to tell me that NOT ALL GOPers are reprehensible pieces of shit?...OMFG? my rose colored glasses just got shit splashed on them... LOL!

When do these fucking dolts have time to worry about the business of the state when they are preoccupied with gay issues of their own making?

Now, now, you're forgetting the rule of thumb RJ Republicans use: because not EVERY Republican would support this bill, you can't criticize ANY Republican lawmakers for their proposing and possibly passing it. Nor criticize them for similar bigoted bills that Republican lawmakers have been passing all across the country at State level.

Nor criticize ANY voters who vote these anti-gay lawmakers into office, because not ALL Republicans vote for them. Since that would be making generalizations. Got it?

WHAT????.....so, you mean to tell me that NOT ALL GOPers are reprehensible pieces of shit?...OMFG? my rose colored glasses just got shit splashed on them... LOL!

No problemo. RJ Republicans will be glad to lend you one of their pairs. They're always willing to pass out plenty around here, through which to view Republican anti-gay actions.

When do these fucking dolts have time to worry about the business of the state when they are preoccupied with gay issues of their own making?

Now, now, you're forgetting the rule of thumb RJ Republicans use: because not EVERY Republican would support this bill, you can't criticize ANY Republican lawmakers for their proposing and possibly passing it. Nor criticize them for similar bigoted bills that Republican lawmakers have been passing all across the country at State level.

Nor criticize ANY voters who vote these anti-gay lawmakers into office, because not ALL Republicans vote for them. Since that would be making generalizations. Got it?

"you can't criticize ANY Republican lawmakers for their proposing and possibly passing it"

Bobbi, you are a liar, drunk or not, still a liar.

Show us ... all of us ... where any of the esteemed conservaposse ever said or implied such a thing.

YN2K taught you and everyone else the Google Advanced Search skills, which I use quite often as you've noticed. You can easily do the same. Show us just one time when any of us have said that "you can't criticize ANY Republican".

^^^^^^^^ Prefect example actually. You're just too partisan to see it. And 'kindler gentler' does NOT mean that we won't respond when attacked. 'Kindler gentler' is NOT a surrender.

ART_DECO said

"Now, now, you're forgetting the rule of thumb RJ Republicans use: because not EVERY Republican would support this bill, you can't criticize ANY Republican lawmakers for their proposing and possibly passing it. Nor criticize them for similar bigoted bills that Republican lawmakers have been passing all across the country at State level."

But I am talking about your response. If you want to contribute to the kinder, gentler RJ that some of you are claiming to forge, you would not have made a low blow statement—alluding his comment is a result of being intoxicated.

I know "kinder, gentler" doesn't mean to surrender, but it is about how you choose to respond.

But I am talking about your response. If you want to contribute to the kinder, gentler RJ that some of you are claiming to forge, you would not have made a low blow statement—alluding his comment is a result of being intoxicated.

I know "kinder, gentler" doesn't mean to surrender, but it is about how you choose to respond.

"City Hall workers have come up the street to where we are, sheltering in the bar where we are. The same bar I recently mentioned in another RJ thread about our St. Patrick's Day activities.""

"low blow" is the least I could do.

Let me ask you this ... How does Bob respond in about 1/3 of his posts? And who almost always starts it? 'Kindler gentler' means that I'll respond in kind. Kindler gentler is not a surrender .... not to that one. He shapes his act up and stops his war then there won't be any need for low blow comments.

But I am talking about your response. If you want to contribute to the kinder, gentler RJ that some of you are claiming to forge, you would not have made a low blow statement—alluding his comment is a result of being intoxicated.

I know "kinder, gentler" doesn't mean to surrender, but it is about how you choose to respond.

"City Hall workers have come up the street to where we are, sheltering in the bar where we are. The same bar I recently mentioned in another RJ thread about our St. Patrick's Day activities.""

"low blow" is the least I could do.

Let me ask you this ... How does Bob respond in about 1/3 of his posts? And who almost always starts it? 'Kindler gentler' means that I'll respond in kind. Kindler gentler is not a surrender .... not to that one. He shapes his act up and stops his war then there won't be any need for low blow comments. So why isn't your comment directed toward him?

Alluding my ass? Yes, he said he was at the bar, but that doesn't mean he was drunk. You suggested he would make those type of comments because, 'hey, look where's he at.' Art_Deco didn't say he was drunk and he is a good sport about admitting it.

freedomisn'tfree, when you respond in kind, you are resorting to the old ways, tit for tat. That is something you guys are allegedly trying to get away from.

And why didn't I respond to him? Well, it isn't Art who is making a big deal about this alleged new RJ. You have been a big promoter of it, yet here you are set in your old ways. I would think you would want to set the example. No?

If you think his comments were uncalled for, fine. But don't add fuel to the fire by responding in kind.

But I am talking about your response. If you want to contribute to the kinder, gentler RJ that some of you are claiming to forge, you would not have made a low blow statement—alluding his comment is a result of being intoxicated.

I know "kinder, gentler" doesn't mean to surrender, but it is about how you choose to respond.

"City Hall workers have come up the street to where we are, sheltering in the bar where we are. The same bar I recently mentioned in another RJ thread about our St. Patrick's Day activities.""

"low blow" is the least I could do.

Let me ask you this ... How does Bob respond in about 1/3 of his posts? And who almost always starts it? 'Kindler gentler' means that I'll respond in kind. Kindler gentler is not a surrender .... not to that one. He shapes his act up and stops his war then there won't be any need for low blow comments. So why isn't your comment directed toward him?

Alluding my ass? Yes, he said he was at the bar, but that doesn't mean he was drunk. You suggested he would make those type of comments because, 'hey, look where's he at.' Art_Deco didn't say he was drunk and he is a good sport about admitting it.

freedomisn'tfree, when you respond in kind, you are resorting to the old ways, tit for tat. That is something you guys are allegedly trying to get away from.

"You suggested he would make those type of comments because, 'hey, look where's he at."

I think I remember why I had you on block. So we're going to go what ..... 50 rounds on this one? So best thing for you to do is run it into the ground? You and I once again disagree, and it doesn't take 50 rounds back and forth to deal with it.

TIT for tat seems to be the only way for that one. Nothing else works. We've tried the kinder gentler approach with him many many times and it only makes it worse. It's frankly the only way to deal with bullies

"If you think his comments were uncalled for, fine. But don't add fuel to the fire by responding in kind."

So again, art_deco clearly started it, so why aren't your comments directed toward him? Because you're both partisans and on the same side?

But I am talking about your response. If you want to contribute to the kinder, gentler RJ that some of you are claiming to forge, you would not have made a low blow statement—alluding his comment is a result of being intoxicated.

I know "kinder, gentler" doesn't mean to surrender, but it is about how you choose to respond.

"City Hall workers have come up the street to where we are, sheltering in the bar where we are. The same bar I recently mentioned in another RJ thread about our St. Patrick's Day activities.""

"low blow" is the least I could do.

Let me ask you this ... How does Bob respond in about 1/3 of his posts? And who almost always starts it? 'Kindler gentler' means that I'll respond in kind. Kindler gentler is not a surrender .... not to that one. He shapes his act up and stops his war then there won't be any need for low blow comments. So why isn't your comment directed toward him?

Alluding my ass? Yes, he said he was at the bar, but that doesn't mean he was drunk. You suggested he would make those type of comments because, 'hey, look where's he at.' Art_Deco didn't say he was drunk and he is a good sport about admitting it.

freedomisn'tfree, when you respond in kind, you are resorting to the old ways, tit for tat. That is something you guys are allegedly trying to get away from.

"You suggested he would make those type of comments because, 'hey, look where's he at."

I think I remember why I had you on block. So we're going to go what ..... 50 rounds on this one? So best thing for you to do is run it into the ground? You and I once again disagree, and it doesn't take 50 rounds back and forth to deal with it.

TIT for tat seems to be the only way for that one. Nothing else works. We've tried the kinder gentler approach with him many many times.

So again, art_deco clearly started it, so why aren't your comments directed toward him? Because you're both partisans and on the same side?

We don't have to go 50 rounds. We can leave this as is. But if you still feel that tit for tat is justified in your new approacher for the "kinder, gentler" then all that says is that this new campaign is falling apart, as it is built on sand and fog.

I already explained why my comments weren't directed at him. You are one of the cheerleaders for this new approach, but you are resorting to the old ways? You should be leading by example.

I don't care how "many many" times you tried. If you really believe that responding in kind is not the answer, then don't. Control yourself. Show us your convictions.

If you want to blame my criticism on partisanship, one can look at how one-sided your condemnation is when someone doesn't fall in line with the "new" RJ. So I wouldn't go there if I was you.

But I am talking about your response. If you want to contribute to the kinder, gentler RJ that some of you are claiming to forge, you would not have made a low blow statement—alluding his comment is a result of being intoxicated.

I know "kinder, gentler" doesn't mean to surrender, but it is about how you choose to respond.

"City Hall workers have come up the street to where we are, sheltering in the bar where we are. The same bar I recently mentioned in another RJ thread about our St. Patrick's Day activities.""

"low blow" is the least I could do.

Let me ask you this ... How does Bob respond in about 1/3 of his posts? And who almost always starts it? 'Kindler gentler' means that I'll respond in kind. Kindler gentler is not a surrender .... not to that one. He shapes his act up and stops his war then there won't be any need for low blow comments. So why isn't your comment directed toward him?

Alluding my ass? Yes, he said he was at the bar, but that doesn't mean he was drunk. You suggested he would make those type of comments because, 'hey, look where's he at.' Art_Deco didn't say he was drunk and he is a good sport about admitting it.

freedomisn'tfree, when you respond in kind, you are resorting to the old ways, tit for tat. That is something you guys are allegedly trying to get away from.

"You suggested he would make those type of comments because, 'hey, look where's he at."

I think I remember why I had you on block. So we're going to go what ..... 50 rounds on this one? So best thing for you to do is run it into the ground? You and I once again disagree, and it doesn't take 50 rounds back and forth to deal with it.

TIT for tat seems to be the only way for that one. Nothing else works. We've tried the kinder gentler approach with him many many times.

So again, art_deco clearly started it, so why aren't your comments directed toward him? Because you're both partisans and on the same side?

We don't have to go 50 rounds. We can leave this as is. But if you still feel that tit for tat is justified in your new approacher for the "kinder, gentler" then all that says is that this new campaign is falling apart, as it is built on sand and fog.

I already explained why my comments weren't directed at him. You are one of the cheerleaders for this new approach, but you are resorting to the old ways? You should be leading by example.

I don't care how "many many" times you tried. If you really believe that responding in kind is not the answer, then don't. Control yourself. Show us your convictions.

If you want to blame my criticism on partisanship, one can look at how one-sided your condemnation is when someone doesn't fall in line with the "new" RJ. So I wouldn't go there if I was you.

Round 5 and only 45 more to go.

"kinder, gentler" then all that says is that this new campaign is falling apart,"

You know full well who to go talk to.

"If you really believe that responding in kind is not the answer, then don't. Control yourself. Show us your convictions"

You know full well who to go talk to. And besides, I never said that. I think with bullies, internet or RL, it's absolutely what you have to do.

My convictions, my ass? As I've written many times regarding the best way to deal with bullies. My opinion of course and I own it.

creature saidYes, he said he was at the bar, but that doesn't mean he was drunk. You suggested he would make those type of comments because, 'hey, look where's he at.' Art_Deco didn't say he was drunk and he is a good sport about admitting it.

TY. And let's examine what I ACTUALLY said in that thread. We went to the bar for 3 reasons: to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, since I'm partly Irish, as well as to mark March 17 as the 19th anniversary of my coming out. A day I consider my second birthday, and about which I think I may start a separate RJ thread.

Third, I wrote that we brought green cakes and green tortellini as lunch for our friends, whom we arranged to meet there. It was our plan to have 1 glass of green beer (I really don't like beer), eat our stuff, and then run some more errands. The bomb scare at City Hall blocked the streets, so we were marooned.

Sure I reported and later joked about it live from my iPad, because I thought adults here, especially those who know me in person, wouldn't presume I was drunk just because we were inside a gay bar. They would see the humor in being involuntarily trapped in a bar on St. Patrick's Day (what a fate for someone part Irish!), as well as hearing the initial concern over the sudden threat, and how rumors were swirling all around us.

Fortunately for us a number of our friends were there for the food we brought, became a sort of impromptu party, that we shared with strangers also stranded there. Everyone loved my husband's tortellini, and they always love his cakes.

And so freedomisntfree turned that incident into something nasty about me? This is a reason I have him on Ignore, can only read him indirectly through quotes by others.

But again, thanks creature for getting the story right. Here are the original links to what I wrote: